What kind of logic is behind the journalist’s remark that Pastor Brock will have less credibility because of this? Isn’t the Christian argument weakened if only people who don’t struggle with same-sex attractions are the ones that oppose it? When he exposes an outspoken opponent to homosexuality to be someone who has those attractions and that person submits himself immediately to church authorities for investigation and is found to be faithful to the position he has been espousing, how does that not give him more credibility? Wouldn’t the journalist have argued (rightly) that Pastor Brock had no credibility if he had been found out to have been acting on his same-sex desires? Of course, the traditional Christian view of homosexuality will not be treated fairly by the media, but this seems so blatantly illogical that one would hope that at least some colleague close to this journalist would chide him on this. Good luck.